Case study for b f goodrich wheel

Goodrich Case Study - Failure of B. Goodrich Tires and Brake Introduction: Goodrich is one of the largest maker of automotive tires and rubber. They have different types of tires for all sorts of automotive vehicles, from car to truck, performance to seasonal. Goodrich Came to Be In 1870 Dr. In 1980 the name was changed to B. Goodrich Company and changed again to BFGoodrich later in the 1980s. The name was finally changed to Goodrich Corporation in 2001, which is as it remains now.

However, the Goodric Corporation and B. Goodrich Tires are not the same company.

The A7D Affair Essay

When the company was called B. Goodrich, they became one of the largest tire and rubber manufacturers in the world. This was made possible by the merging with Uniroyal in 1986. However in 1988 the B. Goodrich Tire Line was then sold to Michelin. As it is now, B. Goodrich Tires and Goodrich Corporation are two different companies.

B.F. Goodrich Air Force A7D Brake Problem Case

Goodrich Tires and Goodrich Corporation were the same company, B. Goodrich was offered a contract to supply wheels and brakes for the Air Force on June 18, 1967. Goodrich's innovative technical design which featured a lightweight four-rotor brake and their competitive bid, B. Goodrich won the contract. Goodrich had to put forward reports showing that the brake passed specified qualifying tests put forward by the Air Force before the brakes were accepted. Goodrich had close to a year for design and testing with the following two weeks, last two weeks of June 1968, reserved for flight-testing.

The Failure of B. Goodrich The brakes did however fail during the Test Flights of June 1968. Kermit Vandivier, a former B. Goodrich employee, accused B. Goodrich and their personnel of falsifying qualification tests and eithical misconduct. Because of this, Senator William Proxmire, a Democrat of Wisconsin, requested a governmental inquiry into the brake qualification testing that was conducted by B.

Goodrich's plant in Troy. There was finally a Congressional hearing, which lasted four hours and was chaired by Senator Proxmire, to investigate the Air Force A7D Aircraft in which the brake problems were present.

Later down the road in 1972, Kermit Vandivier wrote an article that depicted his side of the incident case study for b f goodrich wheel B. He basically whistle-blowed on B. Goodrich, but in this case he was treated as a hero who unfortunately lost his job because he did the right thing.

Bf goodrich swap case

Whistle Blowing and the Firing of Vandivier: Was it right for Vandivier to go behind the back of the managers at B. Goodrich and contact his attorney and later the FBI to report the events that were occurring?

Was it right for him to be dismissed from the company because he revealed this information? This section will examine the events surrounding Vandivier's whistle blowing on and later firing from B. The Whistle Blowing Whistle blowing to upper management or outside agencies was an uncommon and risky thing to do at this time, so what made Vandivier risk his own career to report the case study for b f goodrich wheel and illegal activities of his employer?

The major issue that led up to his decision was the fact that once he did help create the falsified reports for his employer, he became involved in their crime of defrauding the government. Vandivier from the beginning was in a lose-lose situation, as a technical writer he was being forced to create a falsified report and defraud the government and risk prosecution at a later time or lose his job immediately. As a person with a family to support, he chose to falsify the report to protect his job at that point after having consulted his managers and being told he had no choice but to write the report.

After hearing news that the military flight tests with the breaks caused safety issues, thus likely bringing the results into suspicion, he took action and contacted his attorney who told him he was guilty of conspiracy to defraud the government.

At this point, he was either going to go to jail for not reporting the crime or lose his job for reporting it. With no other accessible people to go to in the company and no protection from legal action, he took the legal route and got in contact with the FBI in order to protect himself from additional legal trouble.

After a damage control meeting with Lawson and his supervisors in which the major concerns were downplayed, Vandivier became an outcast in the company. Several months later he submitted a resignation letter with a large amount of accusations against the company in it to the head engineer of the plant, Bud Sunderman, who until this point was not involved in the case. Vandivier was quickly fired for disloyalty to the company before his resignation could go through.

Was it right for him to whistle blow against the company? Vandivier did not have much of a choice other than to whistle blow on the company. After being forced to make the choice to create the falsified documents or lose his job, being guaranteed no protection from outside prosecution with an investigation imminent, having supervisors who did not consider their actions unethical and illegal, and having no access to the upper management, Vandivier had no other options within the company.

Could he have tried harder to reach out to the upper management and get their attention? Possibly, but Vandivier states that there was no one above his immediate supervisors or coworkers that he felt he could take it to. The head engineer of his plant, Bud Sunderman, was generally disconnect from day to day activities and the corporate headquarters did not provide any means to report such offenses, so Vandivier did the only thing he could to protect himself. Normally in large companies today, there is someone or a group assigned to investigate allegations such as these.

Being that this was 1968 and questioning the actions of supervisors was even more unacceptable than it was today, there was no such group for Vandivier did not have this option, which would be his primary means of notifying corporate headquarters. Because of the issues stated above, Vandivier did take the only option he had in order to protect himself and was right in taking the whistle blowing action he did.

Was it right to dismiss Vandivier from the company? Vandivier was resigning from the company, so was it right for Bud Sunderman, the plant's chief engineer, to fire him immediately upon receiving his letter of resignation?

This part of the incident seems to be an overreaction to hearing the news of what had been happening in the company for the first time. Sunderman kept himself separated from the day to day activities of the plant, because of this he was not aware of the events that were unfolding within the project and was not informed of the allegations being made by Vandivier.

Because of this lack of knowledge and the perceived act of trying to bring down the company, Vandivier was immediately fired. Sunderman's lack of knowledge is not an excuse to fire employees, but rather a fault of his own for putting responsibility for all plant activity on lower level managers and removing himself from the operation. If he were to have involved himself in the operations, he would have been fully aware of what was going on and the illegal activities could have been stopped before events escalated case study for b f goodrich wheel the point of outside involvement.

Sunderman was himself partly responsible for the actions of Vandivier, so firing him because of it was not justified. For further reading on a similar, more recent case study involving whistle blowing at Hughes Aircraft see the case study entitled "Goodearl and Aldred Versus Hughes Aircraft: Goodrich have or have not reported the failure of their Test Flights? Were they asked to report case study for b f goodrich wheel failures? Ethically, should they have reported these failures?

Legally, should they have reported these failures? The following section will answer answer these questions. Goodrich asked to Report Test Failure? In the contract, the Air Force required that B. Goodrich put forward reports. These reports had to contain material that proved the brakes by B. Goodrich passed qualifying tests specified by the Air Force. The brakes made for the Air Force however did not pass these qualifying tests yet B.

Goodrich falsified these reports and submitted them to the Air Force, hiding the failure. Goodrich was asked to report on the Test Flights. However, they lied, rendering the reports false. Goodrich have Reported Failure? In general, lying is ethically frowned upon. Goodrich lied on the reports. The reports contained vital information that showed whether their brakes passed or did not pass the test flights set forward by the Air Force.

Goodrich falsified the reports because they were out of time or because they got lazy, it was unethical for B.

Goodrich Tire Line was then sold to Michelin.

The Air Force could have also blown the whistle on the test flights a little sooner also.

He basically whistle-blowed on B. The story begins as the B.

Members of the Goodrich staff did not present an honest picture of what the four-rotor brake's limitations were. This section will examine the events surrounding Vandivier's whistle blowing on and later firing from B.

Goodrich to not report failure when failure was evident. It is unethical to compromise safety, lie, and misguide someone or anyone. Goodrich did all of these. A contract is a written agreement that both participating parties must abide by and stay true to.

Goodrich accepted the contract by the Air Force. The contract required that B. Goodrich submit reports as to if failure was or was not evident on the qualifying tests set forward by the Air Force. Goodrich did submit these reports but lied on them. They did not report the failure that occured and these failures were required by the contract to be submitted in the report to the Air Force.

To not abide by the contract is illegal and thus B. Goodrich commited an illegal act. Public safety becomes very crucial in this part of the case study. The questions are now whose to blame?